A civil proceedings order was sought against the respondent. The respondent had commenced many actions against a particular company, which it was claimed were vindictive in nature.
Held: Though the earliest proceedings had been vexatious it was not possible to characterise more recent attempts to litigate as such. ‘An improper motive may convert an otherwise legitimate action into one which for present purposes is vexatious. The conversion should not lightly be undertaken however in the circumstances described.’ An order was denied.
Judges:
Pill LJ, Butterfield J
Citations:
[2000] EWHC Admin 422
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Barker CA 16-Feb-2000
An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Vernazza, In Re Vernazza CA 1959
The respondent to an application to prevent him issuing proceedings without the court’s consent, had brought actions claiming in one form or another that a consent judgment ought to be set aside and that he was still owed the sum claimed in the . .
Cited – Re Chaffers, ex parte Attorney General 1897
Wright J said: ‘The consideration of whether a person has habitually and persistently instigated vexatious legal proceedings without any reasonable ground does not depend on a minute examination of whether in each particular action there was a . .
Cited – Speed Seal Ltd v Paddington CA 1985
The court was asked whether the defendant should be permitted to add to his pleadings a counterclaim asserting that the action was brought in bad faith for the ulterior motive of damaging the defendants’ business, and not for the protection of any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140238
